From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7240 invoked by alias); 1 Apr 2005 08:10:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7182 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2005 08:10:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2005 08:10:28 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-68-88.inter.net.il [80.230.68.88]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id EBC74529 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:09:49 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:10:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: GDB Message-ID: <01c5369a$Blat.v2.4$2f0a6100@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <20050331205826.GA1590@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:58:26 -0500) Subject: Re: [mi] watchpoint-scope exec async command Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050328230048.GA1697@nevyn.them.org> <20050329014203.GB3801@white> <20050329013634.GB6373@nevyn.them.org> <20050329024945.GC3957@white> <20050329020123.GA7266@nevyn.them.org> <01c534a6$Blat.v2.4$944e44a0@zahav.net.il> <20050329214414.GA3498@nevyn.them.org> <01c53564$Blat.v2.4$1da3c140@zahav.net.il> <20050331014749.GA264@white> <01c535ab$Blat.v2.4$c21baac0@zahav.net.il> <20050331205826.GA1590@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:58:26 -0500 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: GDB > > I do have another question though. If GDB has another mecanism to > determine when hardware watchpoints go out of scope, why does it add the > scope watchpoint at all? I think that the scope breakpoint was introduced when software watchpoints were coded. Software watchpoints do need the scope breakpoint, and as you demonstrated, there's no problem in that case. That is why I think we should simply not use the scope breakpoint for hardware watchpoints. > Is it added and then never used? Well, your research shows that they _are_ used. We have two separate mechanisms that serve the same purpose. > or does it not serve a function at all in this case? You mean, except for crashing GDB? ;-) Anyway, note that the warning about the watchpoint going out of scope comes from the code that independently detects this for hardware watchpoints, with no help from the scope breakpoint. Which perhaps means that we need to add a similar warning to the code that handles the case that the scope breakpoint was hit, so that software watchpoints will also produce such a warning.